Seminarians with same-sex attractions

[argent_paladin]

This poll is prompted by this article:
[quote]Prelate advises against gay seminarians

POPE TO REVIEW PRIESTHOOD RECOMMENDATIONS IN WAKE OF ABUSE SCANDAL

By Rachel Zoll

Associated Press


The American prelate overseeing a sweeping Vatican evaluation of every seminary in the United States said Monday that most gay candidates for the priesthood struggle to remain celibate and the church must ``stay on the safe side'' by restricting their enrollment.

Archbishop Edwin O'Brien made the comments as Roman Catholics await word of a much-anticipated Vatican document on whether gays should be barred from the priesthood. O'Brien and several other U.S. bishops have said they expect that document to be released soon.

O'Brien, who leads the Archdiocese for the Military Services in Washington, told the Associated Press that ``there are some priests, I don't think there are many, some ordained people with same-sex attractions and they've done very well'' remaining celibate.

``But generally speaking, in my experience, the pressures are strong in an all-male atmosphere,'' he said. ``And if there have been past failings, the church really must stay on the safe side.''

O'Brien had told the National Catholic Register, an independent newsweekly, that ``anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary,'' even if he had been celibate for a decade or more. O'Brien told the AP that the church is not ``hounding'' gays out of the priesthood, but wants to enroll seminarians who can maintain their vows of celibacy.

[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Having gone to seminary with those I suspect had SSA...I voted for the first one.

[son_of_angels]

Many, many people have had SSA during a stage in puberty, others develop them within the celibate lifestyle as a disordered response to a lack of normal sexual release.

That being said, I think only those who feel themselves tempted or aroused by the same sex, as opposed to those who seek unnatural relations with the same sex, should be treated the same way as all other seminarians.

[son_of_angels]

I can also say, as someone who has faced various temptations, that it is a constant feeling of guilt and secrecy which perpetuates sexual tension and prevents the sublimation necessary to maintain a chaste lifestyle.

A seminarian needs to be able to talk openly about any sexual problems he may be encountering with someone who he knows will not expel him simply for having "disordered thoughts."

Homosexuality also needs to remain within the definitions given it in the Catechism.

Edited September 14, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Socrates]

This topic has been debated at length in numerous previous threads - I'd recommend doing a search - and I don't feel like reitierating all the arguments here.

But the bottom line is homosexuals should not be allowed in the seminaries, period. The prevelance of homosexuality in the seminaries, and its sanctioning by many Church officials is at the root of many problems in the priesthood and the Church.

People suffering from sexual disorders are not the candidates the Church needs for the priesthood.
(Pollitically incorrect, but true).

But the Church already stated that homosexuals should not be in the seminary. There was a document on this from back in the early sixties. (Aloysius has given it)

I had trouble choosing between options 1 and 2 on the poll. I think no homosexuals should be allowed, but obviously people with other chronic lust/sexual disorders should not be there either. I chose 2 because I think people can convert and overcome habits of masturbation, fornication, etc., but if these are still problems when one joins the seminary, they should not be accepted.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 13 2005, 07:40 PM']Many, many people have had SSA during a stage in puberty, others develop them within the celibate lifestyle as a disordered response to a lack of normal sexual release. 
[right][snapback]722247[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disagree with the latter part of that statement - that celibacy causes one to develope homosexual or pedophilic desires. This is an argument used against the celibate priesthood with regards to the pedophilia scandals, but it is false.

If one is "straight" and and living a celibate life, there is no reason he would be tempted to sex with boys or men. Rather, he would be tempted to lust after women.

The problem is people joining the seminaries who already are messed up in the first place (to avoid pressure to date or marry women).

[MC Just]

How about just a YES. Never mind trying to justify it.

[toledo_jesus]

I chose the first one, though I think only those with a [i]current[/i] pattern of lust etc. would not meet the requirements. Otherwise we might not have had St. Augustine. Or Father Corapi, I think.

But homosexuals should not be admitted to the priesthood. Maybe in time, when the culture isn't saturated by do-what-you-feel-likeism, then the position could be reevaluated.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think it's unfair to judge people as either homosexual or not homosexual. It needs to be addressed on a case by case basis.

I do not support allowing homosexuals to become priests, but it is quite unfair to group everyone into a "homosexual or not homosexual group", because its not just black and white.

Having personal experience with this, i know its not just black and white.

[son_of_angels]

[quote]I disagree with the latter part of that statement - that celibacy causes one to develope homosexual or pedophilic desires. This is an argument used against the celibate priesthood with regards to the pedophilia scandals, but it is false.

[/quote]

I am not offering an argument against celibacy nor am I saying that celibacy per se leads to homosexual or even heterosexual lust. However, the difficulty in maintaining celibacy (or chastity in general) should not be minimized. Rather, it IS necessary that priests be able to sublimate their sexual urges so that sexual tension is not constantly be built up and expressed in "intrinsically disordered ways" like homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, and (for the few) pedophilia.

Guilt, secrecy, and confusion as well as, for many, an inability to reconcile their past lives/temptations with their present vocations can stifle their ability to sublimate those feelings in healthy, non sexual ways. After all, following ordination it doesn't just fall off.

This next part may seem a bit racy, but I think its important to explain.

For a long time I struggled with the common temptation for young male youth, masturbation. Indeed, like most men who actually DO choose to fight these urges, it is still a constant struggle. When I was constantly masturbating, and found it my only means of sexual release, I found myself tempted by every type of lust imaginable However, I chose to avoid this sin by wearing a bracelet which reminds me of my commitment to chastity (and possibly to celibacy). Later, I was better able to sublimate my sexual temptations by living a more honest, prayerful, and happy life. However, I still have to deal with the multiplicity of temptations with which I struggled while I was still caught up in those sins.

What am I trying to say? Well, first of all, the daily guilt and constant flood of sexual experiences I was putting in my mind was preventing me from having expressing my sexuality in positive ways. As someone who has struggled with this sexual sin, among others, I know that guilt and secrecy are causal factors in perpetuating disordered sexual release. This is what a policy against those who are having or have had SSA would cause for those who know God has called them to the sacramental Orders and the celibate life. What is now an epidemic would become a pandemic among single Catholic men, as well as a perpetual confusion in the hearts of those called to celibacy. After all, can we not expect that Satan would assail any and all who are to dedicate their lives to God? What are the sexual ramifications for young men who find that they would rather be in church than dating?

I mention especially here St Aelred of Rievaulx, who will probably be my confirmation saint, and whose intercession I invoke for all considering the religious life, who is well known to have had a more than indecent affair with a fellow nobleman before he became a monk and a priest. He was known to submerse himself in water in order to purge his carnal passions. This same man was one who sat at the feet of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and later became one of the greatest priests, homilists, and authors in Medieval Christendom. If the Church took a similar attitude then as it was proposing now, perhaps we would be without a great saint in heaven, for, I say, that the sacrament of Orders provides, at least, the graces necessary to overcome temptation, provided one has a cooperation of will. Perhaps he had not received the graces also which come with the consecrated life, in fear that his former passions prevented him, and the guilt, the inability to face himself, would have prevented him from leaving his former wretched state.

I also propose that we consider especially the notion of homosexuality presented in the Catechism, as opposed to applying the term "homosexual" or "gay" to those whom neither tradition nor magisterial teaching has applied the same. Certainly one living in these states of mortal sin, or grave disorder, could be barred from the priesthood, but why extend the notion of homosexuality beyond its necessary bounds?

[Dreamweaver]

Admitting a seminarian with SSA is like welcoming a straight guy to live in a woman's dorm. Even if they try their best to remain celibate, there is a large chance sucumming to temptation. What if the seminarian's mind is focused on the other seminarians instead of on his studies? One could use the argument of same sex versus split gendered gym classes.

[Thumper]

Had to go with, "No, because many people with SSA could make good, celibate priests! They just need help."

Anyone on the road to ordination needs help to be a good, celibate priest, and I don't think it's necessarily the case that a homosexual can't live out the universal call to holiness as a priest. In fact, I have known great priests who are homosexual, and who are tremendous examples of holiness.

Is developing a mature and faith-filled understanding of sexuality important in seminarians? Ya, you betcha. But simply because one has a homosexual orientation doesn't mean that one is incapable of developing such an understanding.

Is discernment necessary? Yeppers. Both the individual and the larger Church need to prayerfully discern an applicant's vocation. But I'm willing to bet the Church would have been deprived of some of its most outstanding examples of the priestly vocation had we been able to "sift out" homosexuals.

[argent_paladin]

I actually do think it's a tougher call than some think. I was a seminarian for four years. One factor is that no one is a saint, either applying or in the seminary (or after!) If you firmly believe that ssa is disorder and you believe that it is not intrinsic, and if you believe in forgiveness, it would seem that you cannot absolutely ban everyone who has been sexually attracted to another man. Even if someone has acted on it, it would not be a clear call.
For example, say someone engaged in sodomy during high school a couple of times, regretted it and now, 16 years later, would like to join the seminary. Since that time, he has had counseling, has prayed (confessed of course) and has not been tempted since. Why should he be turned away?
Also, even though it might make sense theologically, there is the practical problem that some might join the seminary anyway, either because they are unaware of their attraction, in denial or simply lying.
I would say that those with ssa could enter the seminary if they have shown that they can control it or that they have cured it and they could only do this with a clear track record. Say, five years of counseling with good reports or five years of spiritual direction. I actually wouldn't treat it any differently than other habitual violations of chastity, which all need to be dealt with before seminary begins.

[M.SIGGA]

The priesthood is a vocation and the Church needs holy priests, period. Just because someone is a nice Catholic boy doesn't mean he would make a good priest. A vocation is a unique calling and is something that must be guarded from sexual impurity. Since sexuallity is likely our most natural human function, I would guess any temptation of the sexual sort would already be amplified in a normal holy chaste person who is embracing abstinence and chastity for a priestly vocation. I can't imagine what degree of temptation would exist for someone who has had a pattern of sexual impurity and attempting to be chaste and pure again all of the sudden as a priest, aka "another Christ." I would make the first two options a single choice. There should be no exceptions.

Edited September 14, 2005 by M.SIGGA

[Oik]

I agree with Zach.

In fact, let's look at Saint Augustine. Fornicator, Thief, pagan, used his lover, used other people.


Not only was he a priest, he was a Bishop.